@marketmaker2757.bsky.social
Account is dedicated toward speaking out against Election interference mis/disinformation by highlighting methodological and measurement flaws
Advantage gambler
Advantage gambler
Found it in the 2024 CSV through this link. Thanks!
November 16, 2025 at 5:32 PM
Found it in the 2024 CSV through this link. Thanks!
November 16, 2025 at 5:06 PM
Ahh okay. Looks like the percent (in regards to not generating a full recount, if the results were incorrect) aren’t disclosed for the RLA in PA as far as I can tell
November 16, 2025 at 4:25 PM
Ahh okay. Looks like the percent (in regards to not generating a full recount, if the results were incorrect) aren’t disclosed for the RLA in PA as far as I can tell
github.com/marketmake27...
When you use their subset, and control for 2020 vote share, you actually see trumps vote share decreasing as turnout goes up
When you use their subset, and control for 2020 vote share, you actually see trumps vote share decreasing as turnout goes up
GitHub - marketmake2757/mn-turnout-trump-analysis
Contribute to marketmake2757/mn-turnout-trump-analysis development by creating an account on GitHub.
github.com
November 16, 2025 at 4:16 PM
github.com/marketmake27...
When you use their subset, and control for 2020 vote share, you actually see trumps vote share decreasing as turnout goes up
When you use their subset, and control for 2020 vote share, you actually see trumps vote share decreasing as turnout goes up
Yes, that’s why I said the processes are more rigorous now than at the time this was written
November 16, 2025 at 4:06 PM
Yes, that’s why I said the processes are more rigorous now than at the time this was written
When people ear “x” percent RLA. Do they think that means how many votes are recounted?
November 16, 2025 at 4:05 PM
When people ear “x” percent RLA. Do they think that means how many votes are recounted?
Just so no one misses the alt text
ttps://websites.umich.edu/~wmebane/recount2016.pdf
Here’s an excerpt from one of Mebanes papers from 2016. The auditing process is more rigorous now than it was then
ttps://websites.umich.edu/~wmebane/recount2016.pdf
Here’s an excerpt from one of Mebanes papers from 2016. The auditing process is more rigorous now than it was then
November 16, 2025 at 4:01 PM
Just so no one misses the alt text
ttps://websites.umich.edu/~wmebane/recount2016.pdf
Here’s an excerpt from one of Mebanes papers from 2016. The auditing process is more rigorous now than it was then
ttps://websites.umich.edu/~wmebane/recount2016.pdf
Here’s an excerpt from one of Mebanes papers from 2016. The auditing process is more rigorous now than it was then
Insane dude. If only we had 1000s of other elections we could look at to see if 3rd party candidates get a lot of votes!
November 14, 2025 at 3:28 AM
Insane dude. If only we had 1000s of other elections we could look at to see if 3rd party candidates get a lot of votes!
It’s some other psychological issue in some cases
November 13, 2025 at 9:03 PM
It’s some other psychological issue in some cases
Looks like the deadline was today instead of yesterday. I assume whatever happened, it will be updated overnight in the portal. At least I think that’s how it works
November 13, 2025 at 3:47 AM
Looks like the deadline was today instead of yesterday. I assume whatever happened, it will be updated overnight in the portal. At least I think that’s how it works
Here’s a quick clip of Nathan talking making An apples to oranges comparison between Roman Udots analysis and their analysis (which is missing 1.6 million early votes, 28 percent of all votes btw, which skew Kamala btw).
November 12, 2025 at 3:43 AM
The Udot misapplication grinds my gears so much. Because it’s just either so ignorant and dumb that they don’t know what it is, or they do know and are trying to trick people
November 12, 2025 at 3:30 AM
The Udot misapplication grinds my gears so much. Because it’s just either so ignorant and dumb that they don’t know what it is, or they do know and are trying to trick people
@grassrootsspeak.bsky.social I see you’ve doubled down on this in your latest release. Can you explain why you think it’s weird that these percentages remained consistent?
Basic arithmetic says they should remain consistent based on the total number of RV and the average number of RV
Basic arithmetic says they should remain consistent based on the total number of RV and the average number of RV
November 11, 2025 at 11:30 PM
added daily
November 11, 2025 at 11:29 PM
added daily
Sorry you feel that way, but I wasn’t stating an opinion, rather a fact that has been common in public opinion polling.
November 11, 2025 at 6:04 PM
Sorry you feel that way, but I wasn’t stating an opinion, rather a fact that has been common in public opinion polling.
And what he says would happen precisely happens in the full report, although again the figures here are only illustrative (same footnote) and not exact, but directionally correct and not anything close to what ETA reported in their lawsuit for Allegegny
November 11, 2025 at 5:58 PM
And what he says would happen precisely happens in the full report, although again the figures here are only illustrative (same footnote) and not exact, but directionally correct and not anything close to what ETA reported in their lawsuit for Allegegny
Adding these screenshots for context. Allegheny is in position 0 here and apparently the footnote does not apply if I am interpreting correctly. But the last paragraph is key
November 11, 2025 at 5:18 PM
Adding these screenshots for context. Allegheny is in position 0 here and apparently the footnote does not apply if I am interpreting correctly. But the last paragraph is key
the mean and lower bound are close I guess, but the signs are flipped, on top of mixing up the mean and CI values. And the CI there includes 0. Lastly, that row is for the intercept which I feel like is not relevant.
If thats what they did, thats a whole lot of errors
If thats what they did, thats a whole lot of errors
November 11, 2025 at 4:53 PM
the mean and lower bound are close I guess, but the signs are flipped, on top of mixing up the mean and CI values. And the CI there includes 0. Lastly, that row is for the intercept which I feel like is not relevant.
If thats what they did, thats a whole lot of errors
If thats what they did, thats a whole lot of errors
Either way, anything in there is null and void. only the values from the full state analysis would be pertinent
November 11, 2025 at 4:44 PM
Either way, anything in there is null and void. only the values from the full state analysis would be pertinent
that was the only place I found .238 as well, but I assumed they did not get it from that because its the upper bound.
November 11, 2025 at 4:39 PM
that was the only place I found .238 as well, but I assumed they did not get it from that because its the upper bound.
Just my interpretation of ETAs claim about the vetted summary... I assumed they meant the summary that was posted on their website, but perhaps they did mean what was stated in the suit?
November 11, 2025 at 4:05 PM
Just my interpretation of ETAs claim about the vetted summary... I assumed they meant the summary that was posted on their website, but perhaps they did mean what was stated in the suit?
Nothing burger, TBH. Bernies platofrm was popular too, but when you include tradeoffs, the popularity tanks.
November 11, 2025 at 3:13 PM
Nothing burger, TBH. Bernies platofrm was popular too, but when you include tradeoffs, the popularity tanks.